Cancellation of stop lists

One of the tangible results of civil rallies in Russia is the breaking of the “information blockade”: people suddenly began to appear on federal television channels who had not been invited to appear on television for many years, or never at all. Thus, Alexander Gordon invited Vladimir Ryzhkov and Lev Ponomarev to his program “Citizen Gordon” on Channel One.

This phenomenon is called the “cancellation of stop lists” - mythical lists of people (developed, of course, in the Kremlin) who are prohibited from appearing on television. However, after a short “thaw,” the opposition ideologists disappeared from the screens again.

In an interview with Lenta.ru, presenter Alexander Gordon spoke about the mythical “stop lists” on television and how the oppositionists ended up on the air of Channel One.

"Lenta.ru": How and why did you decide to invite Ryzhkov and Ponomarev to the program "Citizen Gordon" ? After all, until now federal channels have not spoiled the opposition with attention.

Alexander Gordon: Everything is changing, including the policy of federal channels. I think that the appearance of oppositionists in the squares and the increased interest in them from that part of the Channel One audience who went, among other things, to Bolotnaya Square, simply forced these people to give the floor.

Are there any approximate estimates of what part of the Channel One audience goes to Bolotnaya and other rallies? It is usually believed that those who go there are those who do not watch TV at all.

I don’t have any statistics on this matter, I only have a feeling, and, besides, I know a certain number of people who were at Bolotnaya and about whom I know for sure that they watch Channel One.

From whom did the initiative come to call Ryzhkov, for example?

It was a collective decision made by the producers, myself and the editorial team.

That is, the channel management took part in the decision making?

We hold regular working meetings regarding Citizen Gordon, which, in general, consist of management, the editorial team and the performers.

And was there any particular opposition to these candidates?

No, none.

There is a widespread belief that federal channels have so-called stop lists, or at least an unspoken list of names of people whose appearance on air is not welcome. Is this true or is it prejudice?

Most likely, this is so, although I myself did not encounter this, because after all I was running a program about cinema. I think there are absolutely no persona non grata there. The only moment was when I hosted a political program called “2030”, also on Channel One. There I asked one high-ranking official about these sheets, and he told me: “Well, remember” - and named three names, among which was, say, Zakaev, who was then still alive (apparently, a reservation - Akhmed Zakaev is still alive - approx. . "Tapes.ru") . Being in a sober mind and memory, it is unlikely that I would have invited these people to the program myself.

What was the story with Lev Ponomarev? Why did he get offended after recording the “Mr. Gordon” program and write indignant articles?

The story with Ponomarev is simple. The editors gave me the text of the grant application, in which it was written that the group headed by Ponomarev was asking the Western foundation, whose name we published, for money for some political activity, including holding actions in large squares in Moscow. And the areas were even listed. Ponomarev said it was a fake. Since I had no other evidence, I was forced to agree with him. Therefore, this episode was removed from the program edit. But Ponomarev himself hastened to publish his indignation before the program was released, which also seems strange to me.

Are there any plans to invite any other opposition leaders? Or were these people relevant during those three months of protest activity, but are no longer relevant now?

Why not? No. For example, I called Navalny and invited him to a program about corruption. He apologized and said that he couldn’t do it that day, but he would be happy to come on the show if there was a topic that would interest both him and me - in the sense that I would be interested in Navalny as an expert.

That is, the main criterion for selecting characters is their relevance in connection with current events?

Certainly. In addition, there is still an internal task, which we have also articulated: during the existence of the program, try to update, let’s say, the expert base. Because wherever you look, the same people are talking about the same topics. Still, I would like to make some shift towards those people who are smart, competent, but not yet public.

And does it succeed? Such an initiative does not meet with opposition - they say, no, let's leave this person, is he reliable?

No, there is no opposition. On the contrary, there is an articulated request from the channel’s management. But here we must understand that we are faced with another problem. The audience reacts digitally to recognizable and public people. If we bring into the studio only smart people who no one knows, I'm afraid we will lose in digital. And since the program airs in evening prime time, this cannot be done, so here we are between Scylla and Charybdis of meaning and ratings.

That is, we have to make some kind of compromise.

Well, you have to, yes. Little by little, we will accustom the audience to new faces in this media space and hope that this will both improve the quality of discussions and give us the opportunity to agree on something.

Do you personally see from within the connection between the fact that the leadership demanded new faces and simply, perhaps, began to treat them more liberally, and the protests? Or are these independent processes?

You know, of course, there is some kind of dependence here, but I don’t think it’s direct. Because a certain internal fatigue from what was happening was brewing in everyone, especially on large television channels, including their management. I think that in this way, if this is not some kind of social protest, then it is a demand for greater independence in favor of the development of events in Russia in the direction that the majority would consider acceptable.

.b-dreamers { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; }<br />.b-dreamers a { color: #cc0b00; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; font-size: 22px; }<br />.b-dreamers small { display: block; color: #444138; font-size: 10px; }<br />

Dreamers.

History of protest: from Chistye Prudy to New Arbat